Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 85 (413479)
07-31-2007 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Rob
07-30-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
I am trying to make the case that the word 'Thoery' has the same meaning as 'theology' because of it's etymological roots.
There are two things very badly wrong with this. The first is that the etymological roots do not and cannot dictate current usage. THe second is that the etymological roots provide no support whatsoever for that assertion as you already know.
quote:
I want to focus on the Greek meaning, because one derivitive (‘) is the equivalent of the Latin meaning.
That would be MODERN Greek usage because you used a MODERN Greek dictionary. The sie you used does have an option to search for Ancient Greek words - but "theoria" is not included. You can't work out etymology by relying on modern readings for the same reason that you can't use etymology to dictate modern meanings. Word usage changes over time.
quote:
Regardless of whether one uses the word 'theo' or 'thea', it is in fact, rooted in the concept of God. From there, the morphology and etymology begins. And we do not seperate the morphological and etymological applications of the term from the term itself. The lexeme is undeniable. If 'theo' is simply 'spectating' or 'a view' as you are attempting to maintain, then where does the 'emperical or logical quality' come in?
i.e. since all you have is a morphological resemblance you want to use that to dictate the etymology just as you want to use the etymology to dictate the meanings.
Unfortunately if you look for the word "theo" on the University of Texas site you quoted, it does not mean" God" (that is "theos") - it means "run". Base Form Dictionary. Judging by your past record you'll probably drop the morphology argument now...
The rest of your argument essentially states that you view God as reality and therefore all statements about reality are statements about God. This move allows you to classify all statements about reality as "theology" unfortunately it cannot prove your case. Your pantheism is your personal view - and one that is not shared by a majority of people. To everyone else who recognises a distinction between God and physical reality (including those who believe that there is no God) your argument simply does not work. The distinction between science and theology is useful to the majority of people (including theologians !) and thus it will be maintained.
Likewise the distinction between "theory" and "theology" would be maintained since "theology" would cover the entire field of study while "theory" would refer to a narrower body of work - just as it does today.
But still I thank you for this post because it demonstrates the lengths that some creationists will got to to avoid admitting that they are wrong. Any sensible person would simply have looked up the meanings and admitted error. Or indeed not made such an obviously false claim in the first place. You on the other hand prefer to discard the facts and appeal to etymology as if that could override the meaning. When that fails you say that we should ignore the etymology and appeal to morphology as if that dictated etymology. And you back all that up by attempting to declare pantheism true by fiat ! And even that doesn't prove your case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Rob, posted 07-30-2007 9:01 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 3:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 85 (413488)
07-31-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by anastasia
07-30-2007 10:39 PM


quote:
Thea was the Goddess of sight. At some time, the word 'thea' may have become synonymous with 'viewing'. If that is true, then one must distinguish a difference between words which have this derivitive as a root, and words which use 'thea' in the form of a god or goddess concept.
It seems more likely to me that the word "thea" (meaning "sight") came first and the goddess was named from the word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by anastasia, posted 07-30-2007 10:39 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by anastasia, posted 07-31-2007 11:54 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 85 (413490)
07-31-2007 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rob
07-31-2007 3:18 AM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
I am not a panthiest. I am a Christian...
If you are not a panthiest then you must accept that there are elements of physical reality which are distinct from God.
quote:
I've made this precise argument long before and it was ignored.
You may have made the argument before and it may have been ignored because it is complete rubbbish. We don't equate "physics" and "theory" - one is a specific field of study containing many theories and the other is a general term for a narrower boy of work
quote:
You like to focus on one aspect of the whole show, so that you can wish away the others.
You mean that I focus on the topic rather than believing at the irrelevant sophistry you concoct to avoid admitting your error.
quote:
If theory only means 'a view to see'. What is it you are looking at?
It doesn't mean that. As I already told you etymology does not dictate meaning. And even if it did it would not have to specify.
Here's what theory means according to dictionary.com
the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
Note that "a view to see" is not listed as one of the meanings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 3:18 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 85 (413545)
07-31-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rob
07-31-2007 10:00 AM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
Absolutely! Did I say otherwise?
Yes, you did (Message 7)
And yes... God is synonymous with reality
Indeed, once you accept that there are elements of reality that are not God you accept that there are theories which are not even a part of theology.
quote:
There are physical laws that are not in dispute, but have you not heard of 'theoretical physics'? Of course you have...
And those laws are a component of theory (e.g. the four laws of Thermodynamics are a part of the Theory of Thermodynamics).
And I have indeed heard of theoretical physicists. The term is used to distinguish between those physicists who work mainly on developing the theory from those who work mainly on experiments. And the existence of the term supports my point that the words "physics" and "theory" are distinct - otherwise it would be redundant - referring to a "theroetical theoretician".
quote:
This is the rub. Here is the real point of tension. Please do listen carefully.
I did read carefully and found no argument relating to the actual issue under discussion. The real point of tension is that you were wrong and you are desperate to avoid admitting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 10:00 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 11:19 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 85 (413719)
08-01-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rob
07-31-2007 11:19 PM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
Your conflating temporal reality with eternal and absolute reality. The supreme reality is God.
Then that part of your argument as well as being misdirected is also wrong.
quote:
I never said theory was part of theology. The point is that theory is the same discipline.
Yet the word "theory" does not refer to any specific discipline, and that is only one of the obvious errors in your equation of "theory" with "theology". All your arguments about reality could at best establish that all theories fell within the discipline of theology. It's not my fault that your arguments are silly.
quote:
Theory is apart from Him; a cheap immitation, but much more pleasureable to the lustful eye.
However scientific theories are only descriptions of "temporal reality". So thanks for demonstrating that the conflation you refer to is yours.
quote:
What exactly was I wrong about. You resorted to denying that words have historical and fixed objective meaning in order to win the argument.
I resorted to telling the truth ? Is that somehow wrong where you come from ?
The fact is that word usage can and does change over time. Think of how the use of "gay" has changed since the first half of the 20th century ! Or try reading Chaucer.
quote:
If word etymology is irrelevant, then how can we understand what the ancients were talking about? How could we say that I (or you) am wrong about anything?
Now you are being silly. Etymology does not dictate current use. However it is very much a description of past use. We certainly can use it - so long as we use it properly - to determine the past meanings of a word. But we aren't talking about past usage. The actual subject is current usage.
quote:
Wrong compared to what?
You are wrong in that the actual usage of the words is such that theory is a general term applying to bodies of knowledge in several disciplines. You claim that "theory" IS a single discipline, which is theology.
quote:
The fact is, that the logical concepts are the issue, we use different words to convey those concepts. The meaning hasn't changed, just the word games like those of Hume.
Logical concepts are not the issue. The issue is the definitions of two words. "Theory" and "Theology". It could easily be resolved by looking the words up in a dictionary.
quote:
Yet he, you, purpledawn, and jaderis use words to tell us such things...
You have to get outside the box to make those things stick.
If we say there is no 'transcendental signified', then we have just posited one.
You might as well say that there is no truth...
Well, is that true?
I don't think that I need to posit any "transcendental signified" simply to make the point that the definitions of two words are clearly different. All we need to refer to is the ordinary signification of word usage. And a dictionary - although descriptive rather than prescriptive is all that we need to show that you were wrong.
There is truth. The truth is that you, Rob, made an obviously false claim. The truth Rob, is that you don't want to admit to that. The truth, Rob is that you put your self-worship against the truth. So there is truth, Rob, and your whole purpose in starting this thread is to deny it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rob, posted 07-31-2007 11:19 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 08-01-2007 10:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 36 of 85 (413773)
08-01-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rob
08-01-2007 10:07 AM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
Theorizing itself is the discipline. You seem to think that each theory is some entity unto itself and seperate from all the rest of it's brothers and sisters. And it is...
If theorising is a discipline it is an abstract one, disconnected from the specifics of the various fields of study. You however, wish to equate it to a particular field of study.
quote:
That is why your worldview is incoherent. You have all of these nice little boxes (theories) that contain each part of reality. But when you try and put them together, your tower of Babel collapses.
Of course your claim that my worldview is incoherent is a falsehood, a fabrication. The fact is that theories DO have distinct domains and limited scope. And that is a virtue since it allows humans to make use of them. If the physicists ever produced a complete Theory of Everything it would still leave other theories, like the theory of evolution untouched because the amount of work required to get from one to the other is too great to be practical. However this does not entail that the various theories contradict each other. Or that a worldview that includes them cannot recognise any contradictions that might exist and deal with them.
quote:
That's what I expect from a dedicated deconstructionist and post-modern thinker such as yourself.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I'm hardly that !!!
Look - why not admit that you were wrong, rather than making up falsehood after falsehood, fabrication after fabrication.
quote:
You, nosy, and so many others... may not like the big picture because it conflicts with your desire to find a way to rationalize your lifestyle with reality. But that is the opposite road we must travel if we want reality
You don't want to conform to reality. You want reality to conform to you.
Fine... create your own reality. But it will be your own. Existing in isolation will be a hollow victory.
It is no co-incidence that you think that that is exactly what I am doing.
One of is...
Then it is you. You made a claim about the meaning of two words. A claim that could easily be settled by just looking them up in a dictionary. But that would prove you wrong so you try to set reality aside. This whole series of posts is your attempt to deny the reality that you were wrong.
But thanks for providing one more example of how creationism is a narcissistic religion of self-worship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rob, posted 08-01-2007 10:07 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 2:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 39 of 85 (413825)
08-01-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 2:16 PM


Re: correction
Except that it's more likely that the name of the pagan goddess comes from the word for "sight" than the other way around. Meaningful names are common in antiquity - it's just people like us who've absorbed all sorts of foreign names into our culture who find it odd. It would be far more unusual for a meaningless name to become a word than it would be for a goddess to be named after her area of influence. (Note too the names of her children !).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 2:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 2:32 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 48 of 85 (413968)
08-02-2007 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rob
08-02-2007 2:54 AM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
I have the feeling that we are not in agreement PaulK...
Oh I think we are in agreement. We both know that you are fabricating claims in order to deal with the simple fact that you were wrong.
quote:
Did you study 'directly' under the authority of Michel Foucault, or did you just jump on the bandwagon because it seemed convenient?
I'm not on that bandwagon. And you've got no reason to think I am.
quote:
You do not know what it is you say (or do you?). Either way... I do:
Oh, so you know that you're twisting and writhing, trying to desperately escape from the truth ? You know that you are resorting to evasions and fabrications.
quote:
So just go on and deny... I have made my case. You're free to undo it, but at the expense of common sense and reason. if you don't relax you'll undo yourself
You mean at the expense of using common sense and reason. Common sense and reason says that if we want to know if two words mean the same thing we should look them up in a dictionary. You say that we shouldn't do that - if it would prove you wrong.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 2:54 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 10:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 52 of 85 (414074)
08-02-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rob
08-02-2007 10:10 AM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
Does meaning change or words?
Both, of course. A word may change (e.g. the spelling) and it's meaning may also change - as I have shown. As I said before try looking at Chaucer in the original language. It's English but not as we know it.
quote:
Actually, it was Kuresu who tried to deny the meanings based upon etymology.
I very much doubt that. As I remember it the etymology was introdcued to refute your claim that the fact that "theory" started with the letters t-h-e-o meant that it had something to do with God. Which it did sucessfully.
quote:
Word usage changes Paul, but that does not change meaning. It is the 'meaning and concepts' that remain the same. And when they diverge, we cannot ignore their roots. We only use different words. And they are often not that different. They only morph slightly. And the words accurately convey the concepts. Do you deny this?
Your first sentence contradicts itself. The usage of a word is the meaning it is used to convey. The roots of the owrd may give some little insight or suggest artistic use, but actual usage trumps it quite thoroughly. Indeed I not only say that words can significantly change in meaning, I produced an example which has occurred in lviing memory.
[quote] I'll agree with you that the modern definitions are distinct and different between theory and theology..
The thread was poorly written I confess. I should have said they are the same disciplines. [b]The disciplines proceeded from the same assumption; that the universe is ordered in an intelligeable way.[`b] They differ on how we can see reality (or past of reailty) by using a different method of theo. [/quote]
I have to disagree with this, too. Theology does not seem to have started with such an assumption. I don't beleive that "theoretics" is a widely recognised discipline if it is one at all. And if it is - as I have said - it is abstract and is not based on the features of our universe at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 10:10 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 10:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 57 of 85 (414165)
08-03-2007 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rob
08-02-2007 10:47 PM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
Well it did not, since reality (some portion of which all theories attempt to address) is indistinguishable from God.
Reality is God. Perhaps not the God of the Bible. But in the sense of the sovereign aspects of reality with or without our approval.
For example, gravity is God when I am hanging on by a tree root from a cliff.
So you ARE a pantheist.
I have to wonder though at the nature of your faith - since you are prepared to suddenly change your theology in a quite significant way simply to try to avoid losing an argument. It sheds a new light on your preaching and your justifications of preaching, too. Perhaps they, too are mere tactical moves, lacking in true sincerity.
Unfortunately for you it's not enough for YOU to be a pantheist. What you would need to do is to show that the people who coined the word were pantheists. And that they invoked the concept of observation with pantheism in view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rob, posted 08-02-2007 10:47 PM Rob has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 64 of 85 (414295)
08-03-2007 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rob
08-03-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Definition of words
Of course there's no dilemma at all. Evolution is so much beter than the vagueness promoted by self-styled "design theorists" - who have yet to produce a theory that there is literally no contest.
Feel free to give up morality and reality for your "design inference" if you wish. I prefer honesty and reality - and so evolution is the answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 5:32 PM Rob has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 85 (414441)
08-04-2007 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rob
08-03-2007 9:41 PM


Re: Definition of words
quote:
I am getting the biggest joy out of PaulK's frustration with this...
Frustration is the wrong word. And I don't think you enjoy being caught in contradictions at all. It's just a brave face you put on in your attempts to escape the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 08-03-2007 9:41 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 9:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 85 (414563)
08-04-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rob
08-04-2007 9:46 AM


Re: Definition of words
We're not talking about science or big-T Truth. Just ordinary truth about the meanings and history of words. That's the topic. And you evade it because the truth is that you were wong.
And why is science "to run" ? Which is what the Greek word theo means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-04-2007 9:46 AM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024